I no more chose to be straight than a gay person chose to be gay.
Why do the vast majority of heterosexuals who come to the defense of gays feel compelled to also subtly or not so subtly state that they themselves are not gay?
I rarely use Hungarian, but your reason for not using it is awfully contrived. In your example how would you ask the question using your own naming convention?
"What should I do if open paren capital R ecord dash greater than capital K ey capital T ag equals equals null close paren?"
If we used Hungarian and I were to ask the question of a coworker, I would of course leave off all the crap (unless it were relevant). Humans are good at that and Hungarian notation makes it pretty easy to spot the "real" name (just skip everything until you get to the first capitalized letter).
You may have a point if you are instructing a coworker in what to type into his editor, but if that's the case you probably have bigger problems with your development team.
Is it really that big a deal if you can't play your $40 game anymore?
It is an unlikely event that the company does go under (or for some other reason decides to disable activation). By that time the game will most likely have been out for several years and most players who bought the game will play it rarely if ever and they most certainly would have recouped their $40 investment.
If the game is new and worth playing then almost certainly someone else will have bought the rights to it and will continue to sell and support it.
How much extra would you pay for a game to provide insurance that you could authorize it and continue to play it for say 3 years after the purchase? That wouldn't be worth even a quarter to me. Now how much would you pay to guarantee that you'd still be able to play the game even if the original media were lost or misplaced?
This seems extremely low on the list of things to worry about when buying a game. Being concerned about an online game going under after you've invested hundreds of hours building your character is quite reasonable, however.
What makes you think a Catholic school would want to encourage the growth of a young mind? The last thing they want is to teach kids how to think independently.
But I don't think you've actually bought any bandwidth. You've bought the right to use bandwidth subject to the terms of your agreement with the ISP. There is no extra bandwidth lying around going to waste that you've paid for.
First sale rights might apply to selling your copy of Office, but I don't think there is any legal or moral justification for it to apply to your ISP, telephone, cable, etc.
Your second paragraph (and cartoon) seems to contradict the point of your first paragraph. If a friend installs off your copy of Office, the 'new instance' doesn't cost MS anything other than not being able to raid the 'money in his wallet'. But there is a real cost to the ISP when you share your connection.
Either instance of sharing may be morally acceptable (to me) depending on the circumstances, but neither is legally justified (and the 'first sale' rights apply to neither case, IMO).
And it's not about whether the ISP suffers. The ISP is going to make its profit somehow, so if people abuse the current system the ISP will either raise my rates or add real constraints to the system that will inconvenience me.
But I doubt your ISP would be happy if you told them that you were subleasing your bandwidth, even if you didn't exceed their 1 GB/day guideline.
The fundamental problem, IMO, is when people abuse the system and thus drive up the costs for "reasonable" people or force the providers into very restrictive and cumbersome (for consumers) systems.
The Office analogy still holds up. The consumer feels he is under utilizing the product, and therefore chooses to violate the terms of use in the name of "fairness". I don't see how running Office in parallel invalidates the analogy, if anything it argues against sharing bandwidth since that represents a real cost (vs. MS losing the opportunity to sell another Office license).
I agree that it's not about the legality. But arguing about the 'fairness' is a slippery slope.
The ISPs are not charging by the kilobyte, but they are asking that you not sell (or share) your connection. Certainly they'll make a little more money from those who use little bandwidth and they may make nothing (or lose money) from those who constantly utilize the maximum bandwidth.
I don't think you can totally justify loaning out your bandwidth just because you're not using the maximum. It still violates the agreement you have with your ISP. Just as I also don't think you can justify distributing your copy of Office to ten of your friends because you only use it once a month.
Not that it's a big deal most of the time. Certainly reasonable people can "fair"ly share bandwidth and software (even if it's not legal). However, some consumers take it too far and some providers crack down too hard on those who aren't really hurting their bottom line.
The maximum bandwidth may be fixed, but if everyone were always using their maximum bandwidth then the ISPs would lose money on each connection.
Not to mention that there would be fewer subscribers to their service if it were trivial to hop on to someone else's network.
Somebody has to pay for it.
The first analogy isn't great, but it's not as bad as it's being made out to be. The poster is referring to a service, not selling actual tires or anything else of any substantial concrete value (unless you're counting wear-and-tear on the machinery and/or the cost of the weights).
So as long as there is no one in line to get their tires rebalanced, you're not depriving anyone of any revenue, so it should be fine to just take off without paying, right? The mechanic would have just been sitting around doing nothing, so it was only "potential" revenue.
Use the same method with taxi drivers, too. If they're sitting idly waiting for the dispatcher to give them a fare they might as well take you where you want to go, just for the cost of the gas.
But stealing is so much easier when you don't have to put a real face on it.
But, of course, your stats are totally misleading and have led you to the wrong conclusion. And the uninformed person who looked at just the total number of accidents would have made the right decision.
Of course, your decision makes sense if you're deciding whether to drive or fly only 2 miles.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do the vast majority of heterosexuals who come to the defense of gays feel compelled to also subtly or not so subtly state that they themselves are not gay?
"What should I do if open paren capital R ecord dash greater than capital K ey capital T ag equals equals null close paren?"
If we used Hungarian and I were to ask the question of a coworker, I would of course leave off all the crap (unless it were relevant). Humans are good at that and Hungarian notation makes it pretty easy to spot the "real" name (just skip everything until you get to the first capitalized letter).
You may have a point if you are instructing a coworker in what to type into his editor, but if that's the case you probably have bigger problems with your development team.
It is an unlikely event that the company does go under (or for some other reason decides to disable activation). By that time the game will most likely have been out for several years and most players who bought the game will play it rarely if ever and they most certainly would have recouped their $40 investment.
If the game is new and worth playing then almost certainly someone else will have bought the rights to it and will continue to sell and support it.
How much extra would you pay for a game to provide insurance that you could authorize it and continue to play it for say 3 years after the purchase? That wouldn't be worth even a quarter to me. Now how much would you pay to guarantee that you'd still be able to play the game even if the original media were lost or misplaced?
This seems extremely low on the list of things to worry about when buying a game. Being concerned about an online game going under after you've invested hundreds of hours building your character is quite reasonable, however.
Great, so you're saying that it will be an even better model of world history.
What makes you think a Catholic school would want to encourage the growth of a young mind? The last thing they want is to teach kids how to think independently.
Don't you mean: until they can discern what you think is appropriate?
First sale rights might apply to selling your copy of Office, but I don't think there is any legal or moral justification for it to apply to your ISP, telephone, cable, etc.
Your second paragraph (and cartoon) seems to contradict the point of your first paragraph. If a friend installs off your copy of Office, the 'new instance' doesn't cost MS anything other than not being able to raid the 'money in his wallet'. But there is a real cost to the ISP when you share your connection.
Either instance of sharing may be morally acceptable (to me) depending on the circumstances, but neither is legally justified (and the 'first sale' rights apply to neither case, IMO).
And it's not about whether the ISP suffers. The ISP is going to make its profit somehow, so if people abuse the current system the ISP will either raise my rates or add real constraints to the system that will inconvenience me.
The Office analogy still holds up. The consumer feels he is under utilizing the product, and therefore chooses to violate the terms of use in the name of "fairness". I don't see how running Office in parallel invalidates the analogy, if anything it argues against sharing bandwidth since that represents a real cost (vs. MS losing the opportunity to sell another Office license).
The ISPs are not charging by the kilobyte, but they are asking that you not sell (or share) your connection. Certainly they'll make a little more money from those who use little bandwidth and they may make nothing (or lose money) from those who constantly utilize the maximum bandwidth.
I don't think you can totally justify loaning out your bandwidth just because you're not using the maximum. It still violates the agreement you have with your ISP. Just as I also don't think you can justify distributing your copy of Office to ten of your friends because you only use it once a month.
Not that it's a big deal most of the time. Certainly reasonable people can "fair"ly share bandwidth and software (even if it's not legal). However, some consumers take it too far and some providers crack down too hard on those who aren't really hurting their bottom line.
The maximum bandwidth may be fixed, but if everyone were always using their maximum bandwidth then the ISPs would lose money on each connection. Not to mention that there would be fewer subscribers to their service if it were trivial to hop on to someone else's network. Somebody has to pay for it.
Retirement for those over 40, leaving the world to those who don't even know what it means to rebalance a tire?
The first analogy isn't great, but it's not as bad as it's being made out to be. The poster is referring to a service, not selling actual tires or anything else of any substantial concrete value (unless you're counting wear-and-tear on the machinery and/or the cost of the weights).
So as long as there is no one in line to get their tires rebalanced, you're not depriving anyone of any revenue, so it should be fine to just take off without paying, right? The mechanic would have just been sitting around doing nothing, so it was only "potential" revenue.
Use the same method with taxi drivers, too. If they're sitting idly waiting for the dispatcher to give them a fare they might as well take you where you want to go, just for the cost of the gas.
But stealing is so much easier when you don't have to put a real face on it.
But, of course, your stats are totally misleading and have led you to the wrong conclusion. And the uninformed person who looked at just the total number of accidents would have made the right decision. Of course, your decision makes sense if you're deciding whether to drive or fly only 2 miles.